1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to an operation instruction device for informing a manual operation among a series of operations that temporally include both automated operations and manual operations, an operation instruction system that has the operation instruction devices, an operation instruction program storage medium that stores thereon an operation instruction program that is executed in an information processing apparatus such as a computer to cause the information processing apparatus to operate as the operation instruction device, and an operation instruction method that is implemented in the information processing apparatus by the operation instruction program being executed in the information processing apparatus.
2. Description of the Related Art
Related technique will be described with reference to a testing process that is carried out in a factory manufacturing electronic devices and the like for detecting defects of manufactured products.
Such a testing process typically employs an automated testing device for improvement of productivity. When such an automated testing device is used, so-called “multi-machine test” is carried out in which one examiner takes charge of a number of automated testing devices. This is because manual operations by examiners are not required except for setup operations at start or end of testing (e.g., setup of testing devices and/or reading of bar codes for identifying products to be tested) and/or limited manual operations in the course of testing (such as visual checks, button manipulations, placement and removal of parts, and hitting a product to give it light shock).
FIG. 1 conceptually illustrates a multi-machine test.
In this case, one examiner is in charge of testing devices No. 1 to No. 4 and each of these devices carries out testing of one product in parallel.
Although such a multi-machine test can realize high productivity with a small number of examiners, it has problems as follows when considering further improvement of productivity.
(1) Loss due to delay of operation start
(2) Loss due to operation delay for a precedence operation
(3) Loss due to operation delay for a high-priority testing device
(4) Loss due to operation delay for a preceding article
These problems (1) to (4) will be described sequentially.
FIG. 2 illustrates how loss can be caused by delay of operation start.
When one operator is in charge of a number of testing devices (in the example of FIG. 2, four devices), screens on which operations to be done are displayed may be not in the same orientation depending on arrangement of the testing devices, thus the operator may not notice that some manual operation has occurred and details of the operation is shown on one of the screens. As a result, the operator may start the manual operation late, which leads to reduced operation efficiency.
For example, in FIG. 2, the operator looks in the direction of testing device No. 1 and thus does not notice immediately that an operation to be done is displayed on the screen of testing device No. 4. As a result, there will be delay in operation by the time the operator notices the display.
FIG. 3 illustrates how loss can be caused by operation delay for a high-priority operation.
Part (A) of FIG. 3 illustrates temporal arrangement of manual operations and automated tests for testing one product. It is assumed here that both manual operations and automated tests are included as shown in part (A) of FIG. 3 for testing one product.
Part (B) of FIG. 3 shows temporal arrangement of manual operations and automated tests when testing devices No. 1 and No. 2 each test one product of the same kind. The case in part (B) of FIG. 3 will be referred to as Case I.
In this example, after setup operations at the start of testing are first carried out and automated test is started on testing device No. 1, setup operations for stating testing on testing device No. 2 are carried out. Subsequently, manual operations and automated tests are performed on testing devices No. 1 and No. 2 as shown in part (B) of FIG. 3, however, waiting time is caused on the testing devices because manual operation P which takes only a small amount of time such as pressing a button was not performed on testing device No. 1 until a manual operation on testing device No. 2 ended when automated operation would be continued only if manual operation P had been performed on testing device No. 1.
Whereas in Case II of part (C) of FIG. 3, since manual operation P on testing device No. 1 is preferentially performed interrupting a manual operation on testing device No. 2, waiting time on the testing devices is reduced and efficiency is improved.
However, determination of whether to interrupt an operation now being performed and prioritize another operation on another testing device is difficult for an operator who is not thoroughly familiar with the overall operations, thus efficient operations such as in Case II (part (C) of FIG. 3) is hard to be realized and a typical case tends to be operations with some loss as in Case I (part (B) of FIG. 3).
FIG. 4 illustrates loss caused by operation delay for a testing device of a high priority.
In this example, products A, B and C of three different kinds are assembled on assembly lines and testing of products A, B and C are carried out on three testing devices A, B, and C that are managed by one operator. It is assumed here that testing of product A takes a long time for one piece of the product and testing of products B and C takes less time than product A.
In this case, waiting time on testing device A needs to be minimized even by extending waiting time on testing device B and/or C for improving the entire efficiency. However, an ordinary operator would not give special handling to only testing device A and perform manual operations in an order convenient for him, which might lead to reduced efficiency.
FIG. 5 illustrates loss caused by operation delay for a preceding article.
Since it is difficult to know testing by which testing device is ahead when one operator is in charge of a number of testing devices, the operator may not adhere to fast-in-fast-out rule, that is, a product which starts to be tested earlier should pass through testing earlier and passed to the next process. Consequently, standstill in previous and subsequent processes may occur, which causes loss in terms of the entire process.
For example, FIG. 5 shows that because an operation on testing device C was performed when an operation on testing device B should be done preferentially at the time indicated by dotted line in FIG. 5, testing by testing device B is delayed by a time period indicated by arrow P, and time at which testing of the next piece is scheduled to start on testing device B has come before the testing by testing device B ends and standstill is caused due to failure to start testing of the next piece.
What is described above is not limited to testing of products but is applicable to product assembly and/or processing operations that include both automated operations and manual operations.
Although not directed to improvement of testing efficiency, Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 2001-42928, Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 2004-334876, and Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 7-219627 can be referenced as techniques that are relatively close to the technical field of the present invention.
Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 2001-42928 describes that simultaneous display is made on monitors of a number of plant monitoring devices that belong to a system when an alarm is issued. The technique disclosed by Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 2001-42928 for displaying an alarm on multiple monitors simultaneously when an alarm is issued can be used for emergency alert when an alert is issued, however, the technique has no contribution to improvement of normal operation efficiency.
Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 2004-334876 discloses a technique that displays notification sent for a main screen on an auxiliary screen, not the main screen. The technique disclosed by Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 2004-334876 for displaying notification sent for a main screen on an auxiliary screen can improve operation efficiency, however, the way for improving efficiency is not known with the technique as disclosed by Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 2004-334876 and the technique requires further technical development for making it applicable to efficiency improvement.
Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 7-219627 discloses that information from a particular terminal is displayed using a monitor of a terminal with smaller burden when the particular terminal is burdened intensively. The technique disclosed by Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 7-219627 for displaying on a monitor of a terminal that is less burdened addresses the problem of reducing burden on terminals and has no relation to improvement of operation efficiency.